[Winstonm]

This short article exemplifies the role of ideological faith harming real people.

Quote

KANSAS CITY, Kan. (Reuters) - More than 7,000 state employees in Kansas would be furloughed on Monday if state lawmakers cannot agree on a new annual budget by midnight on Saturday, state officials said on Friday. The Kansas House and Senate are trying to make up an estimated $400 million revenue shortfall in the wake of tax cuts engineered by Republican Governor Sam Brownback in recent years

Tax cuts are not a magic pill that cures all ills. There is no Santa. Evolution is real. Faith, hope, and magic do not work, regardless of how hard you believe.

Isn't it time to get over it and grow up?

[kenberg]

If I remember correctly from being out west last year, in Oregon they have a substantial income tax but little sales tax, in Washington, just north, they have a substantial sales tax but no income tax. Which makes for interesting lives for those near the border. Here in Maryland we tax everything. And we still need more so we rip people off with casinos. I gather that in Kansas they lowered the income tax, or eliminated it, but forgot to raise the sales tax. Well, you do have to tax something, except in Nevada where they fly people in to toss their money on the tables.

[PassedOut]

 Winstonm, on 2015-June-06, 14:43, said:

This short article exemplifies the role of ideological faith harming real people.

Tax cuts are not a magic pill that cures all ills. There is no Santa. Evolution is real. Faith, hope, and magic do not work, regardless of how hard you believe.

Isn't it time to get over it and grow up?

Brownback purposely set up his 'experiment' to show how well tax cuts would boost the Kansas economy, enough to recover the lost tax revenue. But I don't expect that his miserable and predictable failure will change folks' belief any more than all the previous failures have done. Many, many years ago, I read When Prophecy Fails. Some folks will open their eyes, but many will not.

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2015-June-06, 14:43, said:

This short article exemplifies the role of ideological faith harming real people.

Tax cuts are not a magic pill that cures all ills. There is no Santa. Evolution is real. Faith, hope, and magic do not work, regardless of how hard you believe.

Isn't it time to get over it and grow up?

Yes, let's grow up and spend, spend, spend.

First, you can't just cut taxes. You have to cut expenditures too. That's harder, of course.

Second, if those 7000 government workers aren't essential, why were they hired in the first place?

[kenberg]

Is it really that simple? Somewhere I saw that there are seven states without an income tax. Washington, I think, is one of them. Other states, I think, have no sales tax. Surely we have to tax something, but it probably matters what and how much. I have the impression that Virgina is more successful than Maryland is at bringing in new business. This has nothing to do with the tax structure? I expect that it does. The Kansas troubles may well have been created without adequate thought. Politicians everywhere and of every stripe have trouble with that. I am not so sure that a screw up there should be regarded as proof that it is always wrong to cut taxes. Of course we could take this conclusion on faith.

We really have quite a bit of tax here in Maryland. I don't mind, I just pay it. I'm retired so I could move. Some do, I don't. But I think it does affect business development and I think a more nuanced discussion would be useful.

We have a Republican governor now. Veru unusual. We shall see how it goes. I voted for him, but not so that he would lower my taxes.

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-06, 17:08, said:

Yes, let's grow up and spend, spend, spend.

First, you can't just cut taxes. You have to cut expenditures too. That's harder, of course.

Second, if those 7000 government workers aren't essential, why were they hired in the first place?

You seem to genuinely not understand that the belief I am talking about is that tax cuts will pay for themselves in increased economic activity. Cutting spending only deepens the hole.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2015-June-06, 16:33, said:

Brownback purposely set up his 'experiment' to show how well tax cuts would boost the Kansas economy, enough to recover the lost tax revenue. But I don't expect that his miserable and predictable failure will change folks' belief any more than all the previous failures have done. Many, many years ago, I read When Prophecy Fails. Some folks will open their eyes, but many will not.

Thanks. I will read that book.

[PassedOut]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-06, 17:08, said:

First, you can't just cut taxes. You have to cut expenditures too. That's harder, of course.

Sure. If the legislators agree to cutting expenditures, you can cut taxes to match.

The problem is that folks buy into the free lunch idea that you can cut taxes without cutting expenditures first. Those who advocate cutting taxes first are, sad to say, irresponsible people.

[barmar]

 PassedOut, on 2015-June-06, 18:29, said:

The problem is that folks buy into the free lunch idea that you can cut taxes without cutting expenditures first. Those who advocate cutting taxes first are, sad to say, irresponsible people.

The problem with that approach is that if money is available, they'll spend it. So the only way to force cuts in expenditures is to take away the money (since many states have constitutional requirements to balance the budget). And they only way to do that is usually to cut taxes.

[PassedOut]

 barmar, on 2015-June-06, 19:10, said:

The problem with that approach is that if money is available, they'll spend it. So the only way to force cuts in expenditures is to take away the money (since many states have constitutional requirements to balance the budget). And they only way to do that is usually to cut taxes.

The deceit (or the foolishness, if sincere) comes into play when politicians pretend to voters that tax cuts won't require the corresponding expenditure cuts.

[blackshoe]

 Winstonm, on 2015-June-06, 18:01, said:

You seem to genuinely not understand that the belief I am talking about is that tax cuts will pay for themselves in increased economic activity. Cutting spending only deepens the hole.

What hole is that?

[mike777]

Yes...yet again this thread brings up the big point, the big question


Do tax cuts...in some form, some way, lead to increases in productivity and increases in economic growth.

Or do tax increases leads to it.

Otoh should we even put such a huge, really huge emphasis on productivity or economic growth.

All very fair questions.
--------------------------


Here is one debate question over increasing govt spending.

space program(Nasa or whatever) today is roughly one half of one percent of budget.

Increase it to 5% of budget?
Have the President set a somehwat vague goal of humans visit Mars in the next ten years.

Let the experts debate...argue over how/whether worth it or not...etc
Let others debate where the money comes from ...it just does.

Of course I assume some of this money will be a complete/silly waste...that is ok
Just get us to Mars
-------------------
--------------------

I fully understand to go from 0.5% to 5.0% of budget means I take money away from your pet budget program.......this is very difficult....needs a great politician.

[ArtK78]

People like Brownback do not understand that one cannot alter the economy by changing the tax system on a local or state level. Regional tax policy will not change the economy thereby creating jobs. Only changes at the national level will do that.

You can obtain some small changes when the tax policies of a state are more favorable than those of a neighboring state, resulting in people or businesses relocating. But significant macro changes will not occur due to a state's tax policies. So Brownback's "experiment" was doomed from the beginning since it ignored economic reality.

By the way, referring to the 7,000 state employees whose jobs are threatened with elimination as non-essential employees doesn't mean that their jobs are not important or necessary. It just means that their positions are not required to maintain public safety. I know that libertarians such as blackshoe believe that most government jobs can be done away with, but most of us understand that such is not the case.

[mike777]

 ArtK78, on 2015-June-06, 23:33, said:

People like Brownback do not understand that one cannot alter the economy by changing the tax system on a local or state level. Regional tax policy will not change the economy thereby creating jobs. Only changes at the national level will do that.

You can obtain some small changes when the tax policies of a state are more favorable than those of a neighboring state, resulting in people or businesses to relocate. But significant macro changes will not occur due to a state's tax policies. So Brownback's "experiment" was doomed from the beginning since it ignored economic reality.

By the way, referring to the 7,000 state employees whose jobs are threatened with elimination as non-essential employees doesn't mean that their jobs are not important or necessary. It just means that their positions are not required to maintain public safety. I know that libertarians such as blackshoe believe that most government jobs can be done away with, but most of us understand that such is not the case.

j
Well that is the debate....


YOU seem to say no in your first sentence,

local or state tax system will not alter your econ.

In fact you go further and claim regional tax changes will not in your second sentence.

-----------------

Winston seems to say other....it does. IN fact the other posters claim same.

[hrothgar]

 mike777, on 2015-June-06, 23:42, said:

j
Well that is the debate....


YOU seem to say no in your first sentence,

local or state tax system will not alter your econ.

In fact you go further and claim regional tax changes will not in your second sentence.

-----------------

Winston seems to say other....it does. IN fact the other posters claim same.

Mike:

It is very clear that you are conflating two very different claims.

It is obviously within the power of a state government to slash taxes.
It is highly doubtful that this act is sufficient to generate sufficient economic growth that the taxes pay for one another.

Word of advice: If you don't understand the point that people are making, it probably doesn't mean that they are wrong.
Rather, it is a sign that your brain doesn't work that well...

[kenberg]

Here is a fact, fwiw. Here in Maryland we have had several furloughs of state employees, including critically essential workers such as college professors. It's a very Democratic state so it seems fair to say that it is not necessary to be a Republican to screw the pooch. It might help to be one, or it might not, but it is not necessary.

As I get the situation in Kansas, and really I do not follow affairs in Kansas closely, the governor wants to raise the sales tax and the legislature is having none of it, and the legislature might reinstate some of the income tax, and the governor will veto it. So here we go again. Wasn't there something about clicking together some red slippers? And then there were the flying monkeys.

[PassedOut]

 mike777, on 2015-June-06, 22:29, said:

Yes...yet again this thread brings up the big point, the big question

Do tax cuts...in some form, some way, lead to increases in productivity and increases in economic growth.

Or do tax increases leads to it.

There's really no big question here.

Tax cuts do lead to increases in economic growth, but that growth won't replace all of the tax revenue lost by the tax cuts. For every dollar of tax revenue that would be lost without the growth, you'll really lose only, say, 85 cents. The other 15 cents will be replaced by the growth.

The actual amount of tax revenue replaced by growth depends upon a lot of factors. Putting more money in the hands of folks who spend it right away is most effective in boosting the economy. The CBO has a good handle on this, probably as good a handle as it is possible to have, given all of the variables.

[Winstonm]

 PassedOut, on 2015-June-07, 07:46, said:

There's really no big question here.

Tax cuts do lead to increases in economic growth, but that growth won't replace all of the tax revenue lost by the tax cuts. For every dollar of tax revenue that would be lost without the growth, you'll really lose only, say, 85 cents. The other 15 cents will be replaced by the growth.

The actual amount of tax revenue replaced by growth depends upon a lot of factors. Putting more money in the hands of folks who spend it right away is most effective in boosting the economy. The CBO has a good handle on this, probably as good a handle as it is possible to have, given all of the variables.

Yes, if you put extra money into the hands of the job-creators, i.e., the people who spend most if not all of their incomes, then tax cuts can indeed increase economic activity.

[Winstonm]

 kenberg, on 2015-June-07, 07:05, said:

Here is a fact, fwiw. Here in Maryland we have had several furloughs of state employees, including critically essential workers such as college professors. It's a very Democratic state so it seems fair to say that it is not necessary to be a Republican to screw the pooch. It might help to be one, or it might not, but it is not necessary.

As I get the situation in Kansas, and really I do not follow affairs in Kansas closely, the governor wants to raise the sales tax and the legislature is having none of it, and the legislature might reinstate some of the income tax, and the governor will veto it. So here we go again. Wasn't there something about clicking together some red slippers? And then there were the flying monkeys.

Ken,

You have to go back in time a bit to understand the silliness in Kansas. The state basically elected a governor and state legislature that believed fervently in Reaganomics, that slashing taxes would pay for itself by increasing economic activity enough to actually increase tax revenues. Needless to say, that faith has been proven to have been misplaced. Kansas is still trying to dig itself out of its hole all the while trying to deny that their fervent faith in a failed ideology had anything to do with it.

[Winstonm]

 blackshoe, on 2015-June-06, 22:26, said:

What hole is that?

The one created by lowered revenue. The hole that the tax-cutters claimed would never occur due to the economic stimulus of cutting taxes.